Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thursday 20 December 2001 12:57 pm, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I prefer to have layered specifications, and not to specify until the
> problem is well understood and enough people are interested.
Me too. I think WebDAV is still too shaky to serve as a foundation.
> The server would still need to implement resource discovery
> (PROPFIND), namespace manipulations (COPY, DELETE, MKCOL). Do you think
> that these features are useless without locking?
Depending on the application, no. For most/many things though, yes.
> They aren't ordered.
The spec is unclear on this, and clients certainly can't handle unordered
multiple occurrences of the response blocks... though the spec appears to
> > WebDAV interoperability has more to do with the small size of the overall
> > community (tribal knowledge) than it does with clarity or correctness of
> > specification.
> Yes and no. I agree that RFC2518 needs more work to go into the next stage
> in the standardization process, but I doub't you'll find a single person in
> the Working Group disagreeing with that. In fact, there's a long list of
> known issues which need to be resolved for this next step.
I know this... my point is that if you implement according to the
specification, you will likely be wrong, or at least not interoperate. That's